mark_chill_plus

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states that a colored CGO object is drawn, without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether existing objects are overwritten, whether prior CHILL+ analysis is required, or how coloring is determined). This is a significant gap for a visualization tool with no annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target, and output without any wasted words. It is concise and structurally clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, but the description is minimal. It does not explain the prerequisite that classification must have been performed, nor does it clarify what 'colored' means in terms of class colors. While the output schema may cover return values, contextual context for a domain-specific visualization tool is lacking, making it only moderately complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 7 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the word 'colored' and the fixed object name, which does not enhance the agent's understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Draw' and clearly identifies the resource ('classified CHILL+ O-O network') and the output (a colored CGO object named 'chill_plus'). This distinguishes it from siblings like chill_plus (computation) or mark_cages (cage marking).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied (draw after classification), and the description indicates the tool produces a CGO object, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. No alternative tools are named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.